ABSTRACT
Those who accept sex differences as more than cultural artifacts, as more than figments of our culturally created imagination, are not convinced by the evidence marshaled to rebut this view. They wonder, for example, about the fact that the feminine Arapesh recently had been headhunters and constantly on the verge of fighting one another. Or the fact that the masculine Tchambouli women devoted themselves so happily and efficiently to the care and feeding of children. Or that their cheerful working together to prepare a feast would fit equally well a group of women preparing a church social in the Mid-West. Or the fact that the Arapesh men and the Tchambouli men, both presumably feminine, were so different—the Arapesh being gentle, unacquisitive, and cooperative and the Tchambouli quarrelsome, bickering, strained, and catty. Or the fact that the Mundugumor and the Tchambouli women, both presumably masculine, were also so different, the first nursing their babies willingly and generously, the second, grudgingly. Or why, if as Margaret Mead said, the Arapesh and the Mundugumor did not differentiate the sexes temperamentally, the women differed from the men. Or why the Mundugumor made little girls desirable to others, dressed them up and decorated them, protected them from hazing, did not use them for hostages. Or why married women had fewer affairs than men. Or more to the point perhaps, why recent anthropological and social-psychological research with more refined techniques arrives at different conclusions. Why a number of studies find that by and large, among peoples as diverse as the lowly Pygmies of Africa and the highly literate Israeli in their kibbutzim, boys value aggression, competition, and dominance more than girls do, while girls value nurturance, stability, and order more than boys do.
